Tugboat Eugenia Moran

Jack'll do

100% crop of the third image.
exif: D700 70-200mm @ 70mm f/16 1/100 iso 450

black mamba

Hi Jack,

I really like this set. I prefer the single boat in color....the extra vibrant punch helps. The triple boat scene is simply great. You're starting to really enjoy the D700, aren't you?

Tom

jeffmeyers

Jack,

Question. These images seem a little noisy. Is that from post processing? I thought the D700 was supposed to give you virtually noise-free images at ISO 450. What's your experience been?

jeffmeyers

jeffmeyers wrote:

Jack,

Question. These images seem a little noisy. Is that from post processing? I thought the D700 was supposed to give you virtually noise-free images at ISO 450. What's your experience been?

Okay. I'm looking a little harder at these now and wondering if it's not noise but just jpeg artifacts. You uploaded these, right? So you must have had to dial down the quality to make the file size cut off. Do you have a SmugMug gallery that we can view them in?

Antonio Correia

jeffmeyers wrote:

... Do you have a SmugMug gallery that we can view them in?

http://jackganson.smugmug.com/

I couldn't find them ...:cry

Jack'll do

jeffmeyers wrote:

Okay. I'm looking a little harder at these now and wondering if it's not noise but just jpeg artifacts. You uploaded these, right? So you must have had to dial down the quality to make the file size cut off. Do you have a SmugMug gallery that we can view them in?

Hi Jeff. Thanks for bringing this up. It may give me the opportunity to review my workflow/upload process with you and see if you think anything I'm doing might better be done otherwise.
Generally I have been shooting in RAW for about 6 months now. Since I've had the D700, about 2 weeks, I have been using NX2 for RAW processing (before that I used ACR). I make basic adjustments in NX2 then save the file in Tiff format. The file is 4256 x 2832 px @ 300 ppi and is 69.0 Mb. I then open the tiff file in PS (CS3) and do further tweaking as necessary. If I am not cropping, I resize by changing resolution to 72ppi which gives me about a 1000px wide image. Then I usually apply high pass filter, and occasionally smart sharpen as needed. Then it is converted to jpg and uploaded to SM.

The uploaded files ( including some other 100% crops which were of a size that they did not require resizing) can be seen here All references to "original raw file" in the captions of images 26-31 refer to image 25

Dogdots

I really like your first photo. BW really looks good to me

jeffmeyers

Jack'll do wrote:

Hi Jeff. Thanks for bringing this up. It may give me the opportunity to review my workflow/upload process with you and see if you think anything I'm doing might better be done otherwise.
Generally I have been shooting in RAW for about 6 months now. Since I've had the D700, about 2 weeks, I have been using NX2 for RAW processing (before that I used ACR). I make basic adjustments in NX2 then save the file in Tiff format. The file is 4256 x 2832 px @ 300 ppi and is 69.0 Mb. I then open the tiff file in PS (CS3) and do further tweaking as necessary. If I am not cropping, I resize by changing resolution to 72ppi which gives me about a 1000px wide image. Then I usually apply high pass filter, and occasionally smart sharpen as needed. Then it is converted to jpg and uploaded to SM.

The uploaded files ( including some other 100% crops which were of a size that they did not require resizing) can be seen here All references to "original raw file" in the captions of images 26-31 refer to image 25

Jack: I can't really see what the problem would be from this workflow. Maybe too many or two intense adjustments in NX2. Sorry I can't help. Maybe it's just the size of your crop. Let's see some more images and maybe we can figure it out.

Jack'll do

jeffmeyers wrote:

Jack: I can't really see what the problem would be from this workflow. Maybe too many or two intense adjustments in NX2. Sorry I can't help. Maybe it's just the size of your crop. Let's see some more images and maybe we can figure it out.

Thanks Jeff. (Note: only images 25-31were taken with the D700 and 70-200mm lens. The others are D80/kit lens captures.)
I notice some apparent noise in the maroon colored steel of the boat. I'm wondering if that is simply a result of either the steel being somewhat pitted after years of exposure to salt or whether the paint itself is somewhat textured. If you look at image 28 in the gallery (link in my last post), which is a screen capture of crop of a 300% blowup of image 27 which is itself a 100% crop of the three boat image, I don't see any significant noise in the light blue painted box or the yellow square next to it.
With regard to overzealous PP in NX2, note that images 27-31 are straight from the camera, then converted to jpg in NX2 or PS3, cropped and uploaded with no PP whatsoever. How do those specific images look in terms of noise?

Jack'll do

Dogdots wrote:

I really like your first photo. BW really looks good to me

Thanks Mary Kim. I can't decide between #1 and #2. #3 is way over processed but somehow the close crops escaped that fate.

Dogdots

Jack'll do wrote:

Thanks Mary Kim. I can't decide between #1 and #2. #3 is way over processed but somehow the close crops escaped that fate.

Have you tried #3 in BW?

Jack'll do

Dogdots wrote:

Have you tried #3 in BW?

Good idea. Here are a couple I converted last nite after reading your suggestion. Not sure which I prefer. What do you think?

black mamba

Hi Jack,

I vote for # 2, not so " overdone " in PP. It appears much sharper to me, more real.....which I have a definite proclivity for.

Tom

Dogdots

I like #2 to, but I like the sky better in #1. Maybe darken the sky some in #2 if you can.

BW on this photo looks good

System

I love #3. It may not be technicaly correct, but it LOOKS good. Sometimes the pro & advanced amature photographers tend to be more critical than the general "public". Does that make sense?

Dooginfif20

I am digging the color in #3! I wish I could afford a D700. I think I might upgrade to the D300 sometime though.

Travism82

These are great photos, I was lucky enough to go on a ride along on the Eugenia a few years back, I'll try and dig up some pics!

I've got a bunch of tug photos in my gallery

Jack'll do

Travism82 wrote:

These are great photos, I was lucky enough to go on a ride along on the Eugenia a few years back, I'll try and dig up some pics!

I've got a bunch of tug photos in my gallery

Hey Travis
Thanks for digging this up. Must admit I was surprised to see it after all this time. Love the pix on your site (especially the Defever).

anvilimage

The color looks great!

How are you sharpening these? There seems to be a slight halo around the buildings in the number 3 along the skyline and a little at the borders edge. It seems to be the same effect as if you cranked up the radius too high with unsharp mask...

-joe

Jack'll do

anvilimage wrote:

The color looks great!

How are you sharpening these? There seems to be a slight halo around the buildings in the number 3 along the skyline and a little at the borders edge. It seems to be the same effect as if you cranked up the radius too high with unsharp mask...

-joe

Hi Joe
Unless you're referring to two very small areas on the roof of the brick building to the right of the yellow building, I really don't see the haloing you are speaking of (sorry). These were done 6 months ago and it may be that, at the time, I decided to live with a very minor oversharpening in one small area in order to achieve the overall results I wanted. The workflow used is outlined in an earlier response I made on this thread. As stated there I never use USM for sharpening. Thanks for looking and commenting.

BTW did you get a chance to see the post I made on your "Sentinel" thread? Curious to know if it helped.

JChurill

Love second shot

Travism82

Jack'll do wrote:

Hey Travis
Thanks for digging this up. Must admit I was surprised to see it after all this time. Love the pix on your site (especially the Defever).

Hey John,

Thanks for checking out my pictures! Ships and nautical photography is certainly my area of interest! I had such a great time in San Francisco with all of the ships and tugboats going by! It was such a difference from being on the Eugenia, which is a traditional tugboat, to going on the Florida in Tampa with the Z drives!

anvilimage

Jack'll do wrote:

BTW did you get a chance to see the post I made on your "Sentinel" thread? Curious to know if it helped.

I did! and after playing with it a bit, I need more practice... I'm not so good at bending buildings...

-joe

kscott

I love the 1st and 2nd images, but for seperate reasons, I like the b&w because it organizes a lot of chaos of the image into wonderful zones of lights and darks. The 2nd image i love because of the tonality of the color. As for the 3rd image i'm in agreement that it has some processing issues if you used high pass for me i tend to use high pass for scenes that are more of natural landscapes because for me it captures the textures the way i like over smart sharpen. and for scenes with man-made lines i use smart shapen because of the way that the tool is seeking a difference between those edges.
Kevin.

Jack'll do

JChurill wrote:

Love second shot

Thanks JC

Jack'll do

anvilimage wrote:

I did! and after playing with it a bit, I need more practice... I'm not so good at bending buildings...

-joe

Yeah it takes a bit of practice, and patience. Try all the sliders etc. (I never run into barrel distortion. I find that all my closeup ultrawide shots need some adjustments for distortion. (Or ya can leave em looking like they're falling over )

Jack'll do

kscott wrote:

I love the 1st and 2nd images, but for seperate reasons, I like the b&w because it organizes a lot of chaos of the image into wonderful zones of lights and darks. The 2nd image i love because of the tonality of the color. As for the 3rd image i'm in agreement that it has some processing issues if you used high pass for me i tend to use high pass for scenes that are more of natural landscapes because for me it captures the textures the way i like over smart sharpen. and for scenes with man-made lines i use smart shapen because of the way that the tool is seeking a difference between those edges.
Kevin.

Thanks for analysis. I quite agree with the comments on 1 & 2. I like high pass filter precisely because it limits sharpening to only the edges and because it doesn't act on the original image just the sharpening layer. Also using layer opacity you can tweak after the fact. I sometimes use a slight amount of hpf and follow with smart sharpen. Depends in the image and what seems to improve it.
My earlier reference to USM referred to using it with amount set low (15-20 or so) and radius very high (150 and up). This is not for edge sharpening but rather eliminates bg noise quite well. For more significant noise problems I use Noise Ninja. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's good to have a full bag of tricks and just use what works best for a given image.
With regards to image #3, I do recall having a heck of a time with it in post processing but not remember exactly why (7 months have passed)